Why "Quicken" Shouldn't Be in the Bible

“Quicken,” along with “quickened” and “quickeneth” is another example of a word which has no meaning in English anymore. It obviously has a denotative meaning in the dictionary, but it is so out of use that it provides no meaningfulness to readers. It has no power. Thankfully, most bibles don't use this archaic word anymore, although I did find one bible still using it: The 21st Century King James Version. I'm not sure what is 21st century about 14th century words, but the publisher describes it's language as “beautiful,” “biblical,” and “reverent” while claiming “Obsolete words replaced,” “accurate updating,” and “clarity of meaning, and reading ease.”
This is another example of words that have no authority to the reader, and without force a word may as well be pagan babblings. Both the Hebrew and Greek words translated as “Quicken” mean enliven (as would quicken if anyone knew what it means), so they should be translated that way. Let me know what you think.

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2012 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Pastor” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

The word rendered “pastor” is Greek poimen “shepherd.” It is literally one who herds sheep. Pastor once had this meaning, but has degraded over the years to mean a preacher (the head of a Church).

“Pastor” might have been an ok translation hundreds of years ago, but its actual meaning is now archaic. The Bible commands no such office as the modern “pastor,” and inventing one out of the text by deliberately mistranslating a word is blasphemy! Truly the pen of the scribes is a lie!
Poimen should be translated for what it means: shepherd. Let me know what you think.

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Ordain” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

“Ordain” is an archaic word; it is not used in everyday language anymore — except in Church where it is used to mean giving someone authority to minister (though The Church doesn’t have authority to keep people from service, since God alone gives spiritual gifts!).

In the King James Version, the word “ordain” is translated from eleven different Hebrew words and thirteen different Greek words. Twenty-four unique words supposedly all mean exactly the same thing. That incredible inconsistency should be proof enough of the absurdity of the word’s translation. Since there are so many words to discuss and none of them is predominant, I will simply list each Strong’s number with a possible translation (you should do some more research yourself; let me know if you find anything interesting):

H3245 Found
H3559 Set up
H4483 Count (?)
H5414 Give
H5975 Stand
H6186 Order
H6213 Make (?)
H6466 Do (?)
H6965 Raise
H7760 Put
H8239 Set

G1096 Become
G1299 Order
G2525 Set down
G2680 Construct (?)
G2919 Judge
G3724 Bound
G4160 Make
G4270 Write before
G4282 Prepare
G4309 Pre-bound
G5021 Arrange
G5087 Lay
G5500 Elect (?)
Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Nation” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

The English word “nation” usually has to do with political boundaries. The words generally translated as “nation” in the Bible are gowy (Strong’s H1471) and ethnos (Strong’s G1484). Ethnos has to do with the customs of a people group (much like our derivative “ethnic”), but can refer to a country, a culture, or people. For example, in Acts 8:9 and 10:22 the word ethnos is clearly referring to people. Political boundaries are expressed by the Greek word basileia “kingdom” (cf. Matthew 21:3 where basileia and ethnos are both used). Hebrew gowy and Greek ethnos are almost synonymous, so remember these concepts when I go over gowy.
How should ethnos be translated? “People” is not a good enough translation, because that word implies only individuals, and can also have a connotation of the commoners or non-rulers (as in “power to the people”), and “people” is also translated from Greek laos. It should not be “tribe” or “race,” as those are denoted by phule and genos respectively. “Nation” is looking better and better, but still it doesn’t have just the right intonation. “Ethnicity” could work, but try it in Galatians 3:8
“Yet foreseeing that out of faith The God is justifying the ethnicities, the scripture fore-messages good at Abraham, that ‘all the ethnicities will be being blessed in you.’”
It is a bit awkward, but “ethnicity” has the connotation of people and customs whereas “nation” has the connotation of physical borders, so I think ethnicity is the best choice.
On to gowy. This word has the idea of people amassing. It is not, however, “people.” “People” is represented by `am. Like ethnos, gowy is closely associated with, but distinct from, the idea of a kingdom. Except for the connotation of bodies, which ethnos doesn’t have, “ethnicity” would seem to work as well for gowy as for ethnos, but try it in Exodus 9:24
“And hail is becoming, and fire amidst the hail, intensely heavy, which there was not like it in all the land of Egypt from since she became an ethnicity.” Fail. When does an ethnicity come into existence? Also, the land became a gowy. What word could imply bodies and land? “Nation” isn’t exactly right, but it seems to be closer than “ethnicity,” since “nation” can imply the physical borders as well as the people. “Ethnicity” also has connotations of minority groups and foreigners, uses devoid in the Greek. Perhaps for continuity, since ethnos is translated in the LXX and NT for gowy, “nation” should be used in both cases. Let me know what you think…
Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Ministry” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

In English, the word “ministry” means a Church program or parachurch program. The Greek word generally translated ministry is diakonia (Strong’s G1248). Diakonia, however, does not mean ministry; it means service. It is related to G1249 diakonos “server” which is alternately translated as “minister” or “deacon” (see my post about “deacon”).

Check out: Acts 1:17, 25; 6:4; 12:25; 20:24; 21:19; 1Cor. 16:15 2Cor. 4:1; 5:18; 6:3; Col. 4:17; 2Tim. 4:5. These are all the verses that translate diakonia as “ministry” in both the King James and New American Standard Bible. Read them, but replace “service” for “ministry.” I think you’ll see the difference. Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Lord” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

There are three problems I intend to cover in this post:

1. Lord as a translation of adonia
2. Lord as a translation of kurios
3. Lord as a substitute for Yahweh
4. Adonai and Yahweh as substitutes for kurios

The words translated as “Lord” are Adonai (Strong’s H136), Yahweh (Strong’s H3068), and kurios (Strong’s G2962). “Lord” is an archaic word and should never be used in an English Bible. It also carries the connotation of an owner, as opposed to a ruler. This connotation is not the one given by either adonai or kurios.

How often do you hear “lord” used in every day speech? If you don’t hear a word used, it does not have any meaning. The only use for Lord in English anymore is for God, but the Greek and Hebrew words thus translated did not have a specifically religious connotation. Lord is a poor translation for either adonai or kurios; master is a far better word for both. It is a word that is still used in contemporary English; it has a connotation of ruler as opposed to owner, and it doesn’t have a solely religious meaning.

A far worse err in Bible translation is the changing of Yahweh to Lord. This is a bizarre Christian holdover of a silly Jewish superstition. They for centuries have refused to utter God’s name (Yahweh). Replacing it with adonai (and occasionally elohim). Christianity carried over this silly Jewish practice by substituting Lord (a translation of adonai) for the name Yahweh. 1) why should Christians keep old Jewish rules 2)why not translate the text for what it says? It’s not as if Yahweh means Lord, it means “he who exists” or “I AM.” Please don’t edit the Bible.

One last mistake is substituting adonai and Yahweh for kurios. Some think they have solved the problems that Church tradition has created by inserting Hebrew words into the New Testament. The problem is Hebrew words have no meaning in English! How many people know what adonai means? There is also a problem with inserting Yahweh into the New Testament: it isn’t there! We have no extant copies of the New Testament with the name Yahweh in them. If some originals did have it, they have not been found. Please translate what the text says, not what it meant to say.

Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Kill” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

There are six different words translated as “kill” in the OT, but they all have shades of meaning. While most of them can mean kill in at least some instances, I want to examine Deuteronomy 5:17. In the KJV, it is translated as “thou shalt not kill.” The word translated as “kill” here is ratsakh (Strong’s H7523). ratsakh does not, as some have said, mean “murder,” for in Deuteronomy 19:4 ratsakh is clearly referring to accidental killing, which definitely is not what the English word “murder” means. However, kill is also not a good translation, as using kill in Deuteronomy 5:17 implies any ending of life is immoral (even accidents or capital punishment). This meaning would clearly contradict other laws.

English majors have a saying: “there are no synonyms.” Excuse the hyperbole of the saying, but if Hebrew uses six words for ending life, then there must be six different connotations. As an analogy, why would an author in English use “hit,” “struck,” “smacked,” or “punched,” when they mean the same thing? Kill is such a broad term, that it cannot be useful for ratsakh; whatever word is used has to fit the context of both the blanket law against ratsakh, and the safeguard for accidental ratsakh. One thing that helps is that Deuteronomy 19:4 and other similar passages clearly indicate contextually with examples that an accident is the exception to the rule, so “murder” is probably better than “kill,” because the context of Deuteronomy 9 explains the exception, whereas Deuteronomy 5 gives no context (so an over specific word can make sense in either one).

If you look at cognate words and also the context of uses of ratsakh it is clear that the connotation is one of violence. Whether it be a lion devouring, or an ax blade flying, ratsakh is a very strong word. Perhaps a comparable word in English is “slay.” Unfortunately, it is becoming archaic, so it isn’t a very good choice either. When working between languages, there is rarely a perfect choice. Perhaps a slang or informal word would work? Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!



Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.